Search

This article provides insight into the potential economic viability of nurse practitioner employment in Dutch general practices. General practitioners face the challenging task of finding the most efficient and effective mix of professionals in general practice to accommodate future care demands within scarce health care budgets. To enable informed decision-making about skill mix issues, economic information is needed. Discursive paper. A descriptive and explorative design was chosen to study the economic viability of nurse practitioner employment in general practice. The conditions under which the nurse practitioner is able to earn back his/her own cost of employment were identified. Preferences and expectations of general practitioners and health insurers about nurse practitioner reimbursement were made transparent. Although general practitioners and health insurers acknowledge the importance of the nurse practitioner in accommodating primary care demands, they have polarised views about reimbursement. The employment of nurse practitioners is seldom economically viable in current practices. It requires a reallocation of (80% of) the general practitioner's freed up time towards practice growth (12% number of patients). The economic viability of the nurse practitioner has proven difficult to achieve in every day health care practice. This study provided insight into the complex interaction of the (cost) parameters that result in economic viability and feeds a further discussion about the content of the nurse practitioner role in general practice based on optimal quality of care vs. efficiency. Effective and efficient health care can only be provided if the actual care needs of a population provide the basis for deciding which mix of professionals is best equipped to deal with the changing and increasing demand of care. A macro-level intervention is needed to help a broad-scale introduction of the nurse practitioner in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background As studies evaluating substitution of care have revealed only limited evidence on cost-effectiveness, a trial was conducted to evaluate nurse practitioners as a first point of contact in Dutch general practices. Aim To estimate costs of GP versus nurse practitioner consultations from practice and societal perspectives. Design of study An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial between May and October 2006, wherein 12 nurse practitioners and 50 GPs working in 15 general practices (study practices) participated. Consultations by study practices were also compared with an external reference group, with 17 GPs working in five general practices without the involvement of nurse practitioners. Method Direct costs within the healthcare sector included resource use, follow-up consultations, length of consultations, and salary costs. Costs outside the healthcare sector were productivity losses. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Direct costs were lower for nurse practitioner consultations than for GP consultations at study practices. This was also the case for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Direct costs of consultations at study practices were lower than those of reference practices, while practices did not differ for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Cost differences are mainly caused by the differences in salary. Conclusion By involving nurse practitioners, substantial economic 'savings' could be used for redesigning primary care, to optimise the best skill mix, and to cover the full range of primary care activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As studies evaluating substitution of care have revealed only limited evidence on cost-effectiveness, a trial was conducted to evaluate nurse practitioners as a first point of contact in Dutch general practices., Aim: To estimate costs of GP versus nurse practitioner consultations from practice and societal perspectives., Design of Study: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial between May and October 2006, wherein 12 nurse practitioners and 50 GPs working in 15 general practices (study practices) participated. Consultations by study practices were also compared with an external reference group, with 17 GPs working in five general practices without the involvement of nurse practitioners., Method: Direct costs within the healthcare sector included resource use, follow-up consultations, length of consultations, and salary costs. Costs outside the healthcare sector were productivity losses. Sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Direct costs were lower for nurse practitioner consultations than for GP consultations at study practices. This was also the case for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Direct costs of consultations at study practices were lower than those of reference practices, while practices did not differ for direct costs plus costs from a societal perspective for patients aged <65 years. Cost differences are mainly caused by the differences in salary., Conclusion: By involving nurse practitioners, substantial economic 'savings' could be used for redesigning primary care, to optimise the best skill mix, and to cover the full range of primary care activities.

Background: Healthcare systems are faced with a changing and increasing demand for care. Against the background of the need to increase service capacity and to improve access to primary care, a project was initiated to introduce the nurse practitioner (NP) role into Dutch general practices., Objective: To explore the value of the NP by describing NP roles and their concordance with the initial concepts of the NP training programme., Methods: An observational longitudinal design, using mixed methods, was conducted between March 2004 and June 2008. A convenience sample of seven NPs and seven teaching general practitioners (GPs), together constituting seven experimental groups, was used. Project documentation and data from consultations between NPs and GPs were collected. Twenty-nine interviews were performed, focusing on NP roles, competencies of NPs and collaboration between professionals., Results: As was anticipated, all NPs have patients with common complaints as their main focus, as well as managing the quality of care projects. Differences between NPs are reported in the percentages of time spent in performing home visits, caring for older people, patient related activities and non-patient related activities., Conclusion: NPs contribute to the accessibility and availability of primary care as well as to collaboration in and quality of primary care. The roles they adopt are influenced by practice needs and financial incentives. It is not clear to what degree NPs have to perform activities to improve quality of care and further research is necessary to define NP core competencies.

Aim: This paper is a report of a study conducted to evaluate process and outcomes of care provided to patients with common complaints by general practitioners or specially trained nurse practitioners as first point of contact., Background: Studies in the United States of America and Great Britain show that substituting nurse practitioners for general practitioners results in higher patient satisfaction and higher quality of care. As the American and British healthcare system and settings differ from that in The Netherlands, a Dutch trial was conducted., Methods: A total of 1501 patients in 15 general practices were randomized to consultation by a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner. Data were collected over a 6-month period in 2006 by means of questionnaires, extracting medical records from practice computer systems and recording the length of consultations., Findings: In both groups, the patients highly appreciated the quality of care. No statistically significant differences were found in health status, medical resource consumption and compliance of practical guidelines in primary care in The Netherlands. Patients in the NP intervention group were more often invited to re-attend, had more follow-up consultations and their consultations took statistically significantly longer., Conclusion: Nurse practitioners and general practitioners provide comparable care. Our findings support an increased involvement of specially trained nurse practitioners in the Dutch primary care and contribute to knowledge of the effectiveness of care provision by nurse practitioners from a national and international perspective.